Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Assn.

The Supreme Court will decide whether state governments -- newly emboldened by the federal tobacco settlement to take anti-smoking measures -- are allowed to require companies that deliver internet tobacco orders to verify the age of their recipients.

In an effort to address the problem of tobacco use by minors, the Maine legislature passed the Tobacco Delivery Law, which imposes requirements on air and motor carriers that transport tobacco products. One provision of the law requires tobacco retailers to only use carriers that verify the age of each tobacco purchaser, and another provision requires that carriers ensure that no tobacco is shipped to unlicensed retailers.

The New Hampshire Motor Transport Association sued, arguing that the state law was preempted by a federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA). The preemption provision of the FAAAA prohibits state from enacting laws "related to" the prices, routes, or services of air and motor carriers.

The Association argued that the Tobacco Delivery Law placed such a burden on the delivery procedures of carriers that it significantly affected their prices and services. The state countered that the FAAAA was only meant to preempt traditional economic regulation by states, and therefore laws enacted pursuant to the state's police power - the power of a state to regulate for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens - were permissible.

The U.S. District Court ruled that the law was preempted by the FAAAA.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the lower court. The First Circuit held that a police power exception to the general rule of preemption would be far too broad and was not intended by Congress. Maine could validly ban all unlicensed tobacco products within its borders, but the FAAAA prohibited the state from implementing this goal by imposing requirements on carriers that significantly alter their delivery procedures.

The Supreme Court ruled that state governments -- newly emboldened by the federal tobacco settlement to take anti-smoking measures -- are nonetheless prohibited from requiring companies that deliver internet tobacco orders to verify the age of their recipients.

In an effort to address the problem of tobacco use by minors, the Maine legislature passed the Tobacco Delivery Law, which imposes requirements on air and motor carriers that transport tobacco products. One provision of the law requires tobacco retailers to only use carriers that verify the age of each tobacco purchaser, and another provision requires that carriers ensure that no tobacco is shipped to unlicensed retailers.

The New Hampshire Motor Transport Association sued, arguing that the state law was preempted by a federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA). The preemption provision of the FAAAA prohibits state from enacting laws “related to” the prices, routes or services of air and motor carriers.

The association argued that the Tobacco Delivery Law placed such a burden on the delivery procedures of carriers that it significantly affected their prices and services. The state countered that the FAAAA was only meant to preempt traditional economic regulation by states, and therefore laws enacted pursuant to the state's police power - the power of a state to regulate for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens - were permissible.

The U.S. District Court ruled that the law was preempted by the FAAAA.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the lower court. The First Circuit held that a police power exception to the general rule of preemption would be far too broad and was not intended by Congress. Maine could validly ban all unlicensed tobacco products within its borders, but the FAAAA prohibited the state from implementing this goal by imposing requirements on carriers that significantly alter their delivery procedures.

On Feb. 20, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the appeals court ruling, rejecting the state’s arguments against pre-emption.

“Despite the importance of the public health objective, we cannot agree with Maine that the federal law creates an exception on that basis,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the Court.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia each filed concurring opinions.

Justice Ginsburg urged federal lawmakers to step in and worked toward a solution. Meanwhile, Justice Scalia wrote that he joined all parts of the majority opinion except those that rely on congressional committee reports to demonstrate legislative intent.

Question presented: Whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts a Maine state law meant to block the delivery of tobacco purchased over the Internet to teenagers.